Food safety clashes with wildlife oversight

Aug. 20, 2013

Written by

In the wake of a recent lawsuit against a Salinas Valley grower alleging responsibility for an E. coli-related death, and an ongoing outbreak of sickness caused by a parasite found in bagged salad from a facility operated by a Taylor Farms subsidiary in Mexico, growers are under increasing pressure to extend animal buffer zones around their crops.

That, say wildlife advocates, is unnecessary and is harming the environment.

Animal feces – from any number of wild or domestic animals – worry growers because of the pathogens that can be introduced into their crops, including a deadly strain of escherichia coli bacteria – E. coli. Wildlife interests, meanwhile, say that increasing buffer zones and fencing are infringing on key habitat and are not founded upon any sound science.

“Fruit and vegetable farmers report being pressured by commercial produce buyers to engage in land-use practices that are not conducive to wildlife and habitat conservation, in a scientifically questionable attempt to reduce food-borne illness risk,” wrote Sasha Gennet with The Nature Conservancy and the lead author of a study published in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, the journal of the Ecological Society of America.

The researchers observed habitat changes in the Salinas Valley between 2005 and 2009, and found that 13.3 percent converted land use to bare ground buffer zones. Ubiquitous fencing also interfered with wildlife migration corridors.

With the writing of the Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement in 2006 and 2007 following a deadly outbreak of E. coli on spinach, a 30-foot buffer zone of open space was established around crops. Why 30 feet?

“Mostly because it already existed in a lot of cases,” said Mary Cisghke, the director of the Salinas-based Leafy Greens Research Program. “It was the room needed to turn a tractor around.”

Since the initial LGMA was forged (roughly 99 percent of all leafy greens grown in California now adhere to the standards established in the Agreement), the issue of food safety has grown exponentially. Consumers, bolstered by closer media scrutiny, are demanding food free of pathogen dangers.

(Page 2 of 2)

Attorneys, emboldened by successful lawsuits against growers and processors, are ever watchful of reported cases of pathogen illness commonly linked to contaminated fresh produce. And elected officials, reacting to the demands of consumers, are passing increasingly tougher food-safety laws.

So it is understandable that the 30-foot buffer zone has become a moving target. The concept, explained Norm Groot, executive director of the Monterey County Farm Bureau, is that wildlife, faced with exposing themselves to predators in open space, will walk around a crop “instead of leaving their remnants behind.” According to the LGMA, the animals posing the greatest risk are deer, wild and domestic pigs, cattle, and goats and sheep.

Retailers and processors are now pushing even greater set-backs – 50 to 100 feet – from rivers, brush and other wildlife habitats, mostly for bragging rights.

“In a sense, it is about retailers and processors wanting to out-do themselves,” Groot said, a view echoed by Cisghke. “They want to be able to say ‘We have the most stringent requirements.’ And any grower who wants to sell into those larger retail and processing markets needs to adhere to the standards they set.”

In a way, it seems a lot like the classic mock documentary, “This is Spinal Tap,” where the guitarist of a stereotypical British glam-rock band boasts that his amplifier’s volume control goes all the up to 11. When the interviewer asks him why he doesn’t just make 10 the highest volume, the rocker looks befuddled. “Because this goes to 11,” he finally answers.

Scientifically, the set-backs make about as much sense, Gennet argues. She notes that LGMA protocols are science based and are a good set of guidelines for what she and Cisghke describe as “co-management” of farmland, meaning the concerns of food safety are balanced with environmental stewardship. But that co-management should be evidence-based, not something concocted in the marketing departments of major food retailers. After all, extending buffer zones for little more than bragging rights has consequences.

“If these practices [of broadening buffer zones] were implemented statewide, across all crops, up to 40 percent of riparian habitat [around rivers and streams] and 45 percent of wetlands in some counties would be affected,” Gennet said.

Dennis L. Taylor writes about agriculture for The Californian. Follow him on Twitter @taylor_salnews.